Remove MBEDTLS_xxx_ALT interface for crypto mechanisms

Mbed-TLS / mbedtls

An open source, portable, easy to use, readable and flexible TLS library, and reference implementation of the PSA Cryptography API. Releases are on a varying cadence, typically around 3 - 6 months between releases.

https://www.trustedfirmware.org/projects/mbed-tls/

Other

5.03k stars 2.51k forks source link

Remove MBEDTLS_xxx_ALT interface for crypto mechanisms #9226

Open tom-daubney-arm opened 3 weeks ago

tom-daubney-arm commented 3 weeks ago

Description

This PR aims to remove the support for the _ALT interface for cryptographic mechanisms.

PR checklist

Please tick as appropriate and edit the reasons (e.g.: "backport: not needed because this is a new feature")

[ ] changelog TODO
[x] 3.6 backport not required
[x] 2.28 backport not required
[x] tests existing tests suffice

Notes for the submitter

Please refer to the contributing guidelines, especially the checklist for PR contributors.

Help make review efficient:

Multiple simple commits
- please structure your PR into a series of small commits, each of which does one thing
Avoid force-push
- please do not force-push to update your PR - just add new commit(s)
See our Guidelines for Contributors for more details about the review process.

tom-daubney-arm commented 2 weeks ago

Note that ABI-API checks are failing but this is expected. I have moved some previously public functions to private - thus affecting the API - and would think that the various removals have affected the ABI as well.

tom-daubney-arm commented 2 weeks ago

PLEASE DO NOT REVIEW THIS PR.

This PR is being split into a series to make review less daunting. Once all the sub-PRs are up, this PR will be closed.

The first sub-PR is here: #9259

tom-cosgrove-arm commented 2 weeks ago

@tom-daubney-arm I've removed the needs-review and needs-reviewer labels, so no-one comes at this to review it, and removed the high-priority and added a DO-NOT-MERGE for good measure :). How would you feel about making this PR a draft in addition? (I'm just thinking of the reporting statistics!)

tom-daubney-arm commented 2 weeks ago

@tom-daubney-arm I've removed the needs-review and needs-reviewer labels, so no-one comes at this to review it, and removed the high-priority and added a DO-NOT-MERGE for good measure :). How would you feel about making this PR a draft in addition? (I'm just thinking of the reporting statistics!)

Happy to make it draft but it is going to be closed within the next working day.